2 Replies to “Ulisses Vaz de Oliveira: Polyphonic Authorship in the Global South: Open Science and Editorial Change in Linguistics Journals”
Thanks for the presentation D’Oliveira!
Enjoyed it. Also, though I wouldn’t argue against the growing embracement of online collaborative authorship for open [scientific but also general knowledge] works such as one finds on public platforms such as Wikipedia as well as Wiki-like content platforms, however, and as you seem to also criticise, I don’t generally advocate for such for just about every kind of literature.
Especially because of the danger such collaborative editing poses for original, individualistic but also creative writing and styles. Doesn’t matter if it’s happening to literature from just the Americas or not. Shouldn’t be taken any light.
It could be that, such is indeed only best left for presenting or refining the presentation of [scientific] facts [which often lack or demand no cosmetic touch no creative delivery]… Perhaps also for collaborative journalism. But if likewise adopted for creative writing or for general works of fiction… Mmm might surely leave us with generally stale or perhaps context-stripped echoes of what were originally formidable works of [distinct] literature!
Especially for future readers and audiences, such modes of [massively collaborative.. almost democratic] editing and publishing of written works [digital or not] might be too deleterious or perhaps overly artificial and devoid of the meaningful traditional humane character of most surviving literary forms.
When applied to certain classical literary forms such as scripture and mythological literature.. Haha, imagine the horrors of reading a future edition of the King James Version Bible that’s been extensively edited via open and collaborative methods by the general public or even by numerous independent (even though moderated) editors! I doubt much of the original sacredness of such texts would survive such modes of editing and publishing!
However, and perhaps.. just to experiment or see what the “collective editorial mind” thinks or is capable of producing.. It might in fact turn out to be a great/wonderful experience coming across a modern Bible that’s been shaped not by a singular authority such as the Church of Rome or England, but instead by the [mostly anonymous] [definitely authoritative?] collective forces of all mankind/the modern Internet! Even just for its academic worth once such a well edited work finally becomes manifest; might be a priceless icon of modern literature and significantly [better] telling of the collective human state than any singular work would have been able to inform us!
Thank you so much for this fascinating presentation. This open-science approach to review/editorial work is new to me, but I think it has a lot of merit and is worth exploring more as a venue for publication. What kind of skepticism or resistance have you encountered (in Brazil, in linguistics, or in science more generally) to this model, and do you think that any skepticism or resistance on whatever grounds (gatekeeping, perhaps) is valid?
Thanks for the presentation D’Oliveira!
Enjoyed it. Also, though I wouldn’t argue against the growing embracement of online collaborative authorship for open [scientific but also general knowledge] works such as one finds on public platforms such as Wikipedia as well as Wiki-like content platforms, however, and as you seem to also criticise, I don’t generally advocate for such for just about every kind of literature.
Especially because of the danger such collaborative editing poses for original, individualistic but also creative writing and styles. Doesn’t matter if it’s happening to literature from just the Americas or not. Shouldn’t be taken any light.
It could be that, such is indeed only best left for presenting or refining the presentation of [scientific] facts [which often lack or demand no cosmetic touch no creative delivery]… Perhaps also for collaborative journalism. But if likewise adopted for creative writing or for general works of fiction… Mmm might surely leave us with generally stale or perhaps context-stripped echoes of what were originally formidable works of [distinct] literature!
Especially for future readers and audiences, such modes of [massively collaborative.. almost democratic] editing and publishing of written works [digital or not] might be too deleterious or perhaps overly artificial and devoid of the meaningful traditional humane character of most surviving literary forms.
When applied to certain classical literary forms such as scripture and mythological literature.. Haha, imagine the horrors of reading a future edition of the King James Version Bible that’s been extensively edited via open and collaborative methods by the general public or even by numerous independent (even though moderated) editors! I doubt much of the original sacredness of such texts would survive such modes of editing and publishing!
However, and perhaps.. just to experiment or see what the “collective editorial mind” thinks or is capable of producing.. It might in fact turn out to be a great/wonderful experience coming across a modern Bible that’s been shaped not by a singular authority such as the Church of Rome or England, but instead by the [mostly anonymous] [definitely authoritative?] collective forces of all mankind/the modern Internet! Even just for its academic worth once such a well edited work finally becomes manifest; might be a priceless icon of modern literature and significantly [better] telling of the collective human state than any singular work would have been able to inform us!
// J’Willrich Lutalo (Editor in Chief, I*POW)
Thank you so much for this fascinating presentation. This open-science approach to review/editorial work is new to me, but I think it has a lot of merit and is worth exploring more as a venue for publication. What kind of skepticism or resistance have you encountered (in Brazil, in linguistics, or in science more generally) to this model, and do you think that any skepticism or resistance on whatever grounds (gatekeeping, perhaps) is valid?